On Wed, Oct 2, 2013 at 3:42 AM, Simon Pieters <simonp@opera.com> wrote: > On Tue, 01 Oct 2013 21:15:30 +0200, Robert O'Callahan < > robert@ocallahan.org> wrote: > > Now we have three interfaces where only two are needed. Why shouldn't >> DOMRect extend DOMRectReadOnly directly? >> > > In http://lists.w3.org/Archives/**Public/www-style/2013Sep/0725.**html<http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2013Sep/0725.html>you argued that that would be confusing. Did you change your mind, or was > it only confusing for "immutable"? > As long as it's clear that ReadOnly != Immutable, I think it's OK. I think readonly<Foo> is going to be difficult to define and will also be clumsy. An interface might have arbitrary mutation methods on it, e.g. Foo::reset(), and there will be no easy way to automatically obviate such methods without additional annotations. I don't think we should go that way. Rob -- Jtehsauts tshaei dS,o n" Wohfy Mdaon yhoaus eanuttehrotraiitny eovni le atrhtohu gthot sf oirng iyvoeu rs ihnesa.r"t sS?o Whhei csha iids teoa stiheer :p atroa lsyazye,d 'mYaonu,r "sGients uapr,e tfaokreg iyvoeunr, 'm aotr atnod sgaoy ,h o'mGee.t" uTph eann dt hwea lmka'n? gBoutt uIp waanndt wyeonut thoo mken.o w * *
Received on Wednesday, 2 October 2013 12:45:04 UTC